Back-on-Market Highlights

DealSlide tracked this creative research and media agency returning to market after 114 days pending, following nearly four months under offer at a $3.23M asking price. For a deal this size, the length of the failed transaction is the main thing worth digging into.

Timeline: First detected on DealSlide on January 6, 2026, the agency spent 120 days on the market before going pending on May 6. It then remained under offer for another 114 days before returning on August 28, putting the total tracked timeline at nearly 8 months.

The numbers: GoMerge reports roughly $3.73M revenue / $808K adjusted EBITDA, a 22% EBITDA margin, putting the $3.23M ask at about 0.9x revenue and 4.0x EBITDA. About 85% of revenue comes from monthly retainers, equivalent to roughly $3.2M of annual revenue, and the firm has 14 W-2 employees plus contractors. The reported $792K weighted average client spend also makes client concentration particularly important to understand.

On the failed deal: A 114-day pending period is long enough that a buyer likely progressed well beyond an initial offer, making the reason it fell apart more important than simply knowing the business is available again. If meaningful diligence was completed, there may also be useful information the broker can share about what was reviewed, what concerns came up and whether the seller's expectations changed as a result.

The most important question to ask: What specifically caused the previous deal to fall apart after 114 days under offer, and did diligence uncover anything related to client concentration, retention, financials or operations that a new buyer should know?

DealSlide tracked this 2-year-old AI WhatsApp and Instagram appointment-booking SaaS returning after just 2 days inactive, with the recorded ask now $45K, down roughly 62% from the original $119K.

Timeline: First detected on DealSlide on July 7, 2026, at $119K. The ask dropped 58% to $50K nine days later, the listing was marked inactive on August 21 after 45 days tracked, and it returned August 24 with DealSlide recording another 10% cut to $45K.

The numbers: This is where the listing needs reconciliation. Acquire currently shows figures including roughly $18K annual revenue / $40K annual profit, while the seller description cites $61.5K TTM revenue / $42K TTM profit and $5.5K revenue / $4.1K profit last month. The listing also reports 10–50 B2B customers and double-digit churn. Those figures do not cleanly reconcile, so the stated 1.1x–2.5x multiples depend heavily on which earnings numbers are actually current.

On the failed deal: DealSlide recorded this as inactive/delisted rather than formally pending, and it returned only two days later, so there is no evidence of a lengthy buyer diligence process. The bigger signal is the repricing: the recorded ask has moved from $119K to $45K, a roughly $74K reduction, in less than two months.

The most important question to ask: Which revenue, profit and ARR figures reflect the current business, and what specifically caused the listing to disappear for two days before returning at another lower price?

DealSlide detected this 2-year-old entertainment YouTube channel back on the market after just 3 days inactive, returning at the same $99K asking price. The channel has 11.1M subscribers and 4B+ lifetime views, making the size of the audience unusual for a sub-$100K listing.

Timeline: First detected on DealSlide on August 20, 2026, the listing went inactive the following day and returned August 24. DealSlide did not detect a pending status or price change during that period, so there is no basis to assume a buyer or failed transaction was involved. Flippa still has the listing in First Access, meaning paying First Access buyers can view it before it becomes publicly available on September 10.

The numbers: Approximately $52K annualized revenue / $48K annualized profit, putting the $99K ask at roughly 1.9x revenue and 2.1x profit. The monthly figures imply a roughly 92% margin, while Flippa displays 94%, so the underlying financials are worth reconciling during diligence.

On the inactive period: Three days is unusually short and very different from a listing returning after weeks under offer. With an audience this large relative to the asking price, the more important diligence is likely around monetization durability, content rights, traffic concentration, and whether recent views and revenue are holding up rather than the subscriber count alone.

The most important question to ask: What caused the listing to go inactive on August 21, and did anything change with the channel, monetization, or seller expectations before it returned?

DealSlide detected this B2B email marketing SaaS back on the market after just 6 days pending, returning at the same $1.15M asking price.

Timeline: First detected on DealSlide on June 3, 2026 at $1.9M. The ask was cut 39.5% to $1.15M on July 14, the business went pending August 13 after 71 days on the market, and returned August 19 after just 6 days under offer.

The numbers: Acquire reports $917.1K TTM revenue / $696.1K TTM profit, or roughly a 76% profit margin. At the current $1.15M ask, that works out to approximately 1.3x revenue and 1.7x profit. The price did not change when the listing returned.

On the failed deal: Six days under offer suggests the transaction ended relatively early rather than after a long diligence process. Given the seller had already cut the asking price by nearly 40% before finding a buyer, it is worth understanding whether the issue was buyer-specific, financing-related, or something uncovered during the initial review.

The most important question to ask: Why did the previous deal fall through after only six days, and had the buyer started diligence or financing before walking away?

DealSlide detected this 27-year-old local print and online newspaper is back on the market after spending 91 days pending, returning at the same $790K asking price. Timeline: First detected on DealSlide on December 23, 2025, it went pending…

DealSlide detected this faceless entertainment YouTube channel back on the market after being marked sold/inactive for 19 days. Three days after returning, it was converted to a $36K fixed-price listing, 35.7% below the $56K price before it went inactive.

Timeline: First detected on DealSlide on June 24 at $73K. The price fell to $65K on June 26 and $56K on July 1 before DealSlide recorded one bid and the listing went sold/inactive on July 24. It returned August 13 and was converted from an auction to the current fixed price on August 16.

The numbers: Flippa reports $54K annual revenue / $48K annual profit, an 89% profit margin. At $36K, the channel is priced at roughly 0.7x revenue and 0.8x profit, and is now 50.8% below its original $73K ask.

On the failed deal: The listing went directly to sold/inactive rather than through a standard pending period, so it is unclear how far the previous buyer got. Flippa also commonly uses "sold" before a transaction has necessarily closed, making it especially important to understand whether this was simply a failed buyer process or whether something surfaced during diligence.

The most important question to ask: What caused the previous transaction to fall through, and did the prior buyer uncover anything during diligence that contributed to the listing returning at a substantially lower price?

DealSlide tracked this Android utility app as sold, then back on the market just 7 days later, with the ask down 23.5% from $99.8K to $76.4K. That price is not a new low. It simply returns the listing to the same ask DealSlide recorded before the August 7 increase.

Timeline: First detected on DealSlide on March 2, 2026, and marked sold on August 7 after 158 days. No separate pending or under-offer stage was recorded. The listing returned on August 14 after 7 days inactive.

The numbers: $76.4K asking price on $74.0K annual revenue / $26.9K annual profit, a 36% profit margin. That's approximately 1.0x revenue and 2.8x profit. The Android app earns from subscriptions and advertising, with 4M+ cumulative downloads reported by the seller.

On the failed deal: The sold-to-active reversal is the part that stands out. If a transaction actually fell through rather than this being a status correction, a new buyer should understand how far the previous deal got and whether anything surfaced during diligence.

The most important question to ask: What happened between the August 7 sold status and the August 14 relisting, and did the previous buyer uncover anything during diligence that caused the deal to fall apart?

DealSlide tracked this two-brand Amazon FBA business is back on the market after 17 days pending, returning at the same $110K asking price + inventory.

Timeline: First detected on July 22, 2026, it went pending just 4 days later. The deal remained pending for 17 days before returning to market on August 13.

The numbers: $243.1K TTM revenue / $50.2K TTM income, with a $110K ask plus inventory. That works out to about 0.5x revenue and 2.2x profit.

On the failed deal: The first buyer moved quickly, but the transaction did not close. Since the price is unchanged, it is worth understanding whether the deal fell apart because of diligence, financing, or something unrelated to the business.

The most important question to ask: Why did the previous deal fall through, and did anything come up during diligence that a new buyer should know about?

DealSlide detected this 4-year-old food-and-drink content site returned to market at $59.9K just eight days after being marked sold. Before going inactive, DealSlide recorded a $45K auction-converted price, which is the last confirmed benchmark before the relisting and makes the current ask 33.3% higher.

Timeline: First detected on DealSlide on June 12, 2026, the auction ended on July 12 and the listing was marked inactive/sold on August 3 before returning on August 11.

The numbers: Flippa currently shows a $59.9K asking price at 3.1x revenue and 3.2x profit. That implies roughly $19.4K annual revenue and $18.7K annual profit. The current ask is back at the original $59.9K price and 33.3% above the last recorded $45K auction figure.

On the failed deal: The $45K figure is the key point to unpack. If that represented an accepted auction price, a buyer should find out how far the transaction got and why it came apart before paying nearly $15K more now. Also, Flippa can mark deals as sold while they are still under offer, so the August 3 status does not necessarily mean a transaction actually closed.

The most important question to ask: What exactly happened with the $45K transaction, how far did it progress before falling through, and why is the seller now asking $59.9K again?

Back on the market at $350K, 46.4% below its prior $653.5K ask, for this one-year-old YouTube channel with 2.1M subscribers and a reported 4B views. DealSlide previously recorded the listing as sold/inactive before it resurfaced.

Timeline: First detected on DealSlide on May 29, 2026, it was active for 40 days before being marked inactive/sold on July 8. It returned 27 days later on August 5 at $392.1K, then dropped another 10.7% to $350K on August 8.

The numbers: Flippa reports $397.5K annual revenue / $392.4K annual profit, a 99% margin, putting the current ask at roughly 0.9x revenue and 0.9x profit. For a channel this young with 2.1M subscribers and 4B reported views, buyers should spend more time on the durability of traffic and earnings than the headline subscriber count.

On the failed deal: Flippa can mark listings as sold while a transaction is still under offer, so the prior status does not necessarily mean a completed sale fell apart. What matters is whether there was a real buyer, how far the process got, and why the seller has now come back at nearly half the previous ask.

The most important question to ask: What happened with the prior buyer or transaction, and what specifically drove the price from $653.5K to $350K?

This AI home-design SaaS returned to the market after 56 days under offer, with its $4.9M asking price unchanged.

Timeline: First detected on DealSlide on March 31, 2026, it went under offer on June 9 after 70 days on the market. It returned on August 4 following nearly two months in the previous deal process.

The numbers: The $4.9M asking price equals approximately 1.1x TTM revenue and 3.5x TTM SDE, based on $4.64M in revenue and $1.39M in SDE. The SaaS offers AI-powered interior, exterior, virtual-staging, and landscape-design tools to users in more than 170 countries.

On the failed deal: The 56-day timeline makes it important to determine whether the issue was specific to the previous buyer, such as financing, or whether something surfaced during diligence.

The most important question to ask: Why did the previous deal fall apart, and did diligence uncover anything related to revenue quality, customer retention, AI costs, or the underlying technology?

This roughly 1-year-old AI app-building SaaS returned after 20 days pending, then cut its asking price 71.4% from $2.1M to $600K, a $1.5M reduction, just two days later.

Timeline: First detected on DealSlide on June 11, 2026, it went pending on July 12 after 31 days. It returned to the market on August 1 and dropped to $600K on August 3.

The numbers: The new price equals approximately 2.1x TTM revenue and 4.0x TTM profit, based on $284.2K in revenue and $150.8K in profit. The SaaS lets users build websites, mobile apps, browser extensions, and bots through AI prompts.

On the failed deal: A price reset this large and this soon after returning is difficult to separate from the unsuccessful process. Buyers should determine whether the original valuation was simply too aggressive or whether diligence uncovered concerns around performance, churn, AI infrastructure costs, or revenue quality.

The most important question to ask: What caused the previous deal to fall apart, and what changed or surfaced during diligence to justify cutting the price from $2.1M to $600K?